DOCSLIB.ORG

Helenium Virginicum (Asteraceae): Antiherbivore Defense?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Helenium Virginicum (Asteraceae): Antiherbivore Defense? Banisteria, Number 13, 1999 C 1999 by the Virginia Natural History Society Factors Controlling the Distribution and Abundance of the Narrow Endemic, Helenium virginicum (Asteraceae): Antiherbivore Defense? John S. Knox, Frank W. Steams Jr., & Charles K. Dietzel, Department of Biology Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 INTRODUCTION to increase with increasing stochasticity of the environ- ment and increasing variability of population size (Good- Helenium virginicum Blake, the Virginia sneezeweed, man, 1987; Pimm et al., 1988; Menges, 1991). It is not is a perennial herbaceous member of the Asteraceae that surprising then, that the Kennedy Mountain Meadow is globally endemic to about 22 sinkhole ponds in Augusta population has twice crashed after unusually lengthy and Rockingham Counties, Virginia (Knox, 1995; Van periods of inundation that lasted- for 16 and 20 months, in Aistine, 1996). The state of Virginia lists the species as 1989 — 90, and 1995 - 97, respectively. Each time that Endangered (Porter & Wieboldt, 1991), and the U.S. Fish extinction of extant plants has occurred, recruitment from and Wildlife Service has recently listed the plant as a a seed bank regenerated the population within one month Threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species of drawdown. In each case, local extinction was associ- Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). ated with heavy growth of floating aquatic vegetation. The narrow endemism of Helenium virginicum seems Evidence suggests that these local extinctions might be to reflect its limitation to rare sites where competition explained in part by the shade intolerance of H. virgini- with other species has been reduced by an unusual cum. Knox (1997) found that distribution of H. virginicum combination of stressful edaphic and hydrologic condi- plants within sinkhole basins reflected shade intolerance tions (Knox, 1997). The clay soils at the sinkhole ponds of the species. At sites surrounded by tall forest with a where this species grows have a low pH, averaging 4.5, relatively dense canopy, plants were absent from the south low levels of B, Ca, K, Mg, and P, and high levels of Al side' of the basins where shade is greatest. Knox (1997) and As. The combination of low pH and high Al is the observed that deeper sinkhole ponds tended to have H. most important edaphic condition that limits the agricul- virginicum plants distributed in a belt, beyond the shade tural use of acid soils worldwide (Barinaga, 1997; Fuente of dense vegetation near the shoreline, but not too deep to et al., 1997), and is well known to impair uptake of the experience .too much shade from the water column during required macronutrients Ca, Mg, and K (Foy, 1974; the winter period of inundation. Knox (1997) found that Taylor, 1988). the patterns of natural recruitment and the survival / of Growing conditions in the sinkhole ponds inhabited by transplants at Kennedy Mountain M&adow also suggested H. virginicum are made more stressful by dramatic that H. virginicum is shade intolerant. Also, viable seeds seasonal changes in water depth (Fig. 1), with months of that have broken dormancy do not germinate under continuous flooding in cooler seasons alternating with favorable temperatures when the seeds are in the dark or periods of drawdown, when the basins lack any standing under a standing column of water that contains green water, during warmer times of the year. Year-to-year plants (J. J. W. Harvey and J. S. Knox, unpublished data). variation in the duration of flooding may be great (Fig. 1); The 'plant grows year round, as is evident from the more long periods of inundation have been associated with narrow leaves produced during winter inundation (J. S. precipitous reductions in one population of H. virginicum Knox, personal observation). We hypothesize that local (Fig. 2) intensively studied for 12 years at Kennedy extinctions occurred after long-term inundation because Mountain Meadow (Knox, 1997; J. S. Knox, unpublished H. virginicum plants growing on the bottom of the basin data). In other species, risk of extinction has been found were shaded below their light compensation point by 96 BANISTERIA NO. 13, 1999 11 111111111111111 X86 1987 1988 75-- 50- 25- I It 11 ND ND 11 J D J D J 1992 1993 1994 1995 Date (Year, Month) Fig. I. Water depth (cm) measured monthly at the center (nearly the deepest point) at Kennedy Mountain. Meadow. D is December; J is June; ND indicates no data collected. floating aquatic vegetation. extinction in cases where population size falls to fewer Another factor that may make H. virginicum vulnera- than 50 flowering individuals. We think that for H. ble to local extinction, and thus contribute to its narrow virginicum, the high year-to-year variability in hydro- endemism, is the plant's sporophytic self-incompatible period, with its dramatic impact on population size, in breeding system (Messmore & Knox, 1,997). Successful conjunction with self-incompatibility, has created a seed production requires pollen with a different mating situation in which the risk of local extinction is high and phenotype than is present on the stigma. Computer the probability of establishing a new population is low. simulations (Byers & Meagher, 1992), as well as field The largest and densest populations of H virginicum studies (DeMauro, 1993) with other species, have re- occur at sites that have been disturbed by human activities vealed that this mating system increases the risk of local such as mowing, grazing, and cutting trees. During a KNOX, STEARNS, & DIETZEL: ANTIHERBIVORE DEFENSE 97 period of population expansion in 1987, Knox (unpub- other species of Helenium are known to be toxic and lished data) found densities of over 400 plants/m2 at one unpalatable to vertebrate (Hesker, 1982; Anderson et al., sinkhole pond that had been disturbed by mowing, in 1983) and invertebrate (Amason et al., 1987) animals. comparison to densities up to 83 plants/m 2 at an especially The toxicity of Helenium (Anderson et al., 1986; Arnason dense area of an undisturbed site that same year., Knox et al., 1987) and other plant genera (Burnett et al., 1977) (1997) speculated that the factors responsible for the has been associated with sesquiterpene lactones. Since H. Much greater densities of H. virginicurn at disturbed sites virginicum is known to contain a specific sesquiterpene may have been activities that reduced the cover of com- lactone, Virginolide, (Herz & Santhanam, 1967), and peting plants, by trees having been cut, and the sites handling the plant leaves a bitter residue on the hands (J. having been mowed and grazed. Knox (1997) called for Knox, personal observation), we suspect that H. virgini- future study of the impact of tree cutting, mowing, and cum may be unpalatable to generalist herbivores. grazing on H virginicum, suggesting that this information To test this hypothesis, we established a common could be useful for management of the species. garden study site where native vertebrate herbivores were We suspect that H. virginicum may be unpalatable to known to be common, and planted large numbers of H. herbivores; that grazing herbivores may selectively reduce virginicum in close association with large numbers of an the biomass of co-occurring plant species, thus reducing attractant plant species palatable to those herbivores. We competition for light between the rare plant and its sought evidence of selective avoidance of H. virginicum •associates. This hypothesis seems plausible given that by herbivorous animals that fed on adjacent attractant ( 25000- I- < 20000- C:3 < 2 cm W 2 cm 15000- - Flowering Fa- O 10000- U. uj Z Z 5000- < 0 d ' — 1986 1987 1988 1989 1 '690 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 YEAR Fig. 2. Total number of Helenium virginicum plants growing within the 1 ha basin of Kennedy Mountain Meadow by stage class, censused in the fall of each year. Flowering refers to plants that flowered that season; < 2 cm refers to the length of the longest rosette leaf on plants that did not flower; > 2 cm refers to the longest rosette leaf on plants that did not flower. Numbers are estimates made by extrapolating from annual census data taken at 53 permanent quadrats, except for 1994 and 1997, when total counts of all plants in the basin were made. 98 BANISTERIA NO. 13, 1999 plants. We reasoned that if substantial herbivOry of the senescence on 5 June 1998, a second cohort of beans was attractant plant occurred, while interspersed with large started from seeds, by planting three bean seeds around numbers of H. virginicum, and the rare plant experienced each adult bean plant. On 17 June 1998, all first cohort little or no herbivory, we could infer that H virginicum is bean plants were removed and the second cohort bean unpalatable to herbiVores. We were also interested to seedlings was thinned \to leave one seedling where each learn if H. virginicum would reduce the extent of herb- first cohort bean plant had been. The treatment quadrats ivory on the attractant plant by comparing herbivory of were weeded. We inspected the experimental plants nearly attractant plants when grown in monoculture with those every day, but observed no evidence of herbivory until grown interspersed with H. virginicum. Such repellent after the herbaceous vegetation in the surrounding old plants have been described in other taxa (Atsatt & field was mowed on 6 July. On 8 July 1998, we began to O'Dowd, 1976). '‘ observe substantial evidence of herbivory, and that evidence increased until 23 July, when we ended the MATERIALS AND METHODS experiment by harvesting the above ground biomass of each bean plant by cutting the stem at soil level. Each In May 1998, we established a common garden in the plant was placed separately in an aluminum pan and dried center of an old field of approximately 0.5 ha on the in an oven for three days at 95 C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BOG SNEEZEWEED Scientific Name: Helenium Brevifolium (Nuttall)
    Common Name: BOG SNEEZEWEED Scientific Name: Helenium brevifolium (Nuttall) Wood Other Commonly Used Names: shortleaf sneezeweed, shortleaf bitterweed Previously Used Scientific Names: Helenium curtissii A. Gray Family: Asteraceae/Compositae (aster) Rarity Ranks: G4/S1 State Legal Status: Special Concern Federal Legal Status: none Federal Wetland Status: OBL Description: Perennial herb with winged, purple stems, 1 - 2½ feet (30 - 80 cm) tall, hairless except the top of the stem, which is covered with cottony hairs. Basal leaves ¾ - 6¾ inches (2 - 17 cm) long and ¼ - 1 inch (0.6 - 3 cm) wide, purple-tinged, spatula-shaped, mostly hairless, present during flowering. Stem leaves smaller, few and widely spaced, alternate, with cottony hairs on both surfaces; leaf bases extend well down along the stem, forming narrow wings. Flower heads 1 - 10 per plant, with 8 - 24 yellow ray flowers, each ray with 3 or 5 teeth, and many reddish-brown disk flowers. Fruit dry and seed-like, with bristles. Similar Species: Spring sneezeweed (Helenium vernale) has one flower head per plant and yellow disk flowers; its stems and leaves are hairless; its basal leaves are up to 10 inches long and much longer than wide. Southeastern sneezeweed (H. pinnatifidum) leaves barely extend down along the stem; flower stalks are rough-hairy; and it has 13 - 40 ray flowers crowded around a yellow disk. Southern sneezeweed (H. flexuosum) usually has many heads in a branched cluster; its disk flowers are purple with 4 lobes. Related Rare Species: None in Georgia. Habitat: Pine- or cypress-dominated wet savannas, seepage slopes, bogs, boggy stream banks, Atlantic white cedar swamps, and powerlines or other clearings through these habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Poisonous Plants of the Southern United States
    Poisonous Plants of the Southern United States Poisonous Plants of the Southern United States Common Name Genus and Species Page atamasco lily Zephyranthes atamasco 21 bitter sneezeweed Helenium amarum 20 black cherry Prunus serotina 6 black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 14 black nightshade Solanum nigrum 16 bladderpod Glottidium vesicarium 11 bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum 5 buttercup Ranunculus abortivus 9 castor bean Ricinus communis 17 cherry laurel Prunus caroliniana 6 chinaberry Melia azederach 14 choke cherry Prunus virginiana 6 coffee senna Cassia occidentalis 12 common buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 25 common cocklebur Xanthium pensylvanicum 15 common sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 19 common yarrow Achillea millefolium 23 eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 18 fetterbush Leucothoe axillaris 24 fetterbush Leucothoe racemosa 24 fetterbush Leucothoe recurva 24 great laurel Rhododendron maxima 9 hairy vetch Vicia villosa 27 hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 23 horsenettle Solanum carolinense 15 jimsonweed Datura stramonium 8 johnsongrass Sorghum halepense 7 lantana Lantana camara 10 maleberry Lyonia ligustrina 24 Mexican pricklepoppy Argemone mexicana 27 milkweed Asclepias tuberosa 22 mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia 6 mustard Brassica sp . 25 oleander Nerium oleander 10 perilla mint Perilla frutescens 28 poison hemlock Conium maculatum 17 poison ivy Rhus radicans 20 poison oak Rhus toxicodendron 20 poison sumac Rhus vernix 21 pokeberry Phytolacca americana 8 rattlebox Daubentonia punicea 11 red buckeye Aesculus pavia 16 redroot pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus 18 rosebay Rhododendron calawbiense 9 sesbania Sesbania exaltata 12 scotch broom Cytisus scoparius 13 sheep laurel Kalmia angustifolia 6 showy crotalaria Crotalaria spectabilis 5 sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 12 spotted water hemlock Cicuta maculata 17 St. John's wort Hypericum perforatum 26 stagger grass Amianthum muscaetoxicum 22 sweet clover Melilotus sp .
    [Show full text]
  • Occasional Papers from the Lindley Library © 2011
    Occasional Papers from The RHS Lindley Library IBRARY L INDLEY L , RHS VOLUME FIVE MARCH 2011 Eighteenth-century Science in the Garden Cover illustration: Hill, Vegetable System, vol. 23 (1773) plate 20: Flower-de-luces, or Irises. Left, Iris tuberosa; right, Iris xiphium. Occasional Papers from the RHS Lindley Library Editor: Dr Brent Elliott Production & layout: Richard Sanford Printed copies are distributed to libraries and institutions with an interest in horticulture. Volumes are also available on the RHS website (www. rhs.org.uk/occasionalpapers). Requests for further information may be sent to the Editor at the address (Vincent Square) below, or by email ([email protected]). Access and consultation arrangements for works listed in this volume The RHS Lindley Library is the world’s leading horticultural library. The majority of the Library’s holdings are open access. However, our rarer items, including many mentioned throughout this volume, are fragile and cannot take frequent handling. The works listed here should be requested in writing, in advance, to check their availability for consultation. Items may be unavailable for various reasons, so readers should make prior appointments to consult materials from the art, rare books, archive, research and ephemera collections. It is the Library’s policy to provide or create surrogates for consultation wherever possible. We are actively seeking fundraising in support of our ongoing surrogacy, preservation and conservation programmes. For further information, or to request an appointment, please contact: RHS Lindley Library, London RHS Lindley Library, Wisley 80 Vincent Square RHS Garden Wisley London SW1P 2PE Woking GU23 6QB T: 020 7821 3050 T: 01483 212428 E: [email protected] E : [email protected] Occasional Papers from The RHS Lindley Library Volume 5, March 2011 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Prairie Dawn-Flower (Hymenoxys Texana) 5-Year Review
    Texas prairie dawn-flower (Hymenoxys texana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo credit: USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office Houston, Texas Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 4 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7 2.4 SYNTHESIS .................................................................................................................. 24 3.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 25 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS.................................................... 26 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 31 Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review: .................................................................. 34 Figures Figure 1 Current H. texana county occurrences ............................................................................. 9 Tables Table 1 Renaming of species historically associated with H. texana ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Host Plants of Cuscuta Glomerata
    Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science Volume 42 Annual Issue Article 8 1935 Host Plants of Cuscuta glomerata H. L. Dean State University of Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1935 Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias Recommended Citation Dean, H. L. (1935) "Host Plants of Cuscuta glomerata," Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 42(1), 45-47. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol42/iss1/8 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dean: Host Plants of Cuscuta glomerata HOST PLAXTS OF CUSCUTA GLOMERATA H. L. DEAN In a previous paper ( 1934) the writer listed eighty-three species of host plants of Cuscuta Gronoi·ii \Villd. for West Virginia. Later six additional hosts for this species were added, as a result of greenhouse experiments at the State University of Iowa, making a total of eighty-nine host plants observed by the writer for this species. During field studies and greenhouse experiments involving Cuscuta glomcrata Choisy a considerable number of host plants has been listed for this species of dodder. Due to the number and variety of these hosts, and since no list of specific host plants has been published for this species, the appended list should be of interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Everywhere but Antarctica: Using a Super Tree to Understand the Diversity and Distribution of the Compositae
    BS 55 343 Everywhere but Antarctica: Using a super tree to understand the diversity and distribution of the Compositae VICKI A. FUNK, RANDALL J. BAYER, STERLING KEELEY, RAYMUND CHAN, LINDA WATSON, BIRGIT GEMEINHOLZER, EDWARD SCHILLING, JOSE L. PANERO, BRUCE G. BALDWIN, NURIA GARCIA-JACAS, ALFONSO SUSANNA AND ROBERT K. JANSEN FUNK, VA., BAYER, R.J., KEELEY, S., CHAN, R., WATSON, L, GEMEINHOLZER, B., SCHILLING, E., PANERO, J.L., BALDWIN, B.G., GARCIA-JACAS, N., SUSANNA, A. &JANSEN, R.K 2005. Everywhere but Antarctica: Using a supertree to understand the diversity and distribution of the Compositae. Biol. Skr. 55: 343-374. ISSN 0366-3612. ISBN 87-7304-304-4. One of every 10 flowering plant species is in the family Compositae. With ca. 24,000-30,000 species in 1600-1700 genera and a distribution that is global except for Antarctica, it is the most diverse of all plant families. Although clearly mouophyletic, there is a great deal of diversity among the members: habit varies from annual and perennial herbs to shrubs, vines, or trees, and species grow in nearly every type of habitat from lowland forests to the high alpine fell fields, though they are most common in open areas. Some are well-known weeds, but most species have restricted distributions, and members of this family are often important components of 'at risk' habitats as in the Cape Floral Kingdom or the Hawaiian Islands. The sub-familial classification and ideas about major patterns of evolution and diversification within the family remained largely unchanged from Beutham through Cronquist. Recently obtained data, both morphologi- cal and molecular, have allowed us to examine the distribution and evolution of the family in a way that was never before possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]
  • First Genome Size Assessments for Marshallia and Balduina (Asteraceae, Helenieae) Reveal 2 Significant Cytotype Diversity
    1 First genome size assessments for Marshallia and Balduina (Asteraceae, Helenieae) reveal 2 significant cytotype diversity 3 Teresa Garnatje1a, Jaume Pellicer1,2*a, Joan Vallès3, Nathan Hall4, Curtis Hansen4, Leslie Goertzen4 4 1Institut Botànic de Barcelona (IBB, CSIC-Ajuntament de Barcelona). Passeig del Migdia s.n. 5 08038 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 6 2Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology Department. Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, 7 Kew, Richmond, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom. 8 3Laboratori de Botànica - Unitat associada al CSIC. Facultat de Farmàcia i Ciències de 9 l’Alimentació, Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat IRBio, Universitat de Barcelona. Av. Joan XXIII 10 27-31, 08028 Barcelona. 11 4Department of Biological Sciences and Auburn University Museum of Natural History, Auburn 12 University, Auburn, AL 36849, U.S.A. 13 *Correspondence: [email protected] 14 aboth authors contributed equally 15 This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not 16 been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which 17 may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. 18 Please cite this article as: 19 Teresa Garnatje, Jaume Pellicer, Joan Vallès, Nathan Hall, Curtis Hansen, Leslie Goertzen 20 (2021). First genome size assessments for Marshallia and Balduina (Asteraceae, Helenieae) 21 reveal significant cytotype diversity. Caryologia, Just Accepted. 22 23 ORCID Numbers (where available): 24 Teresa Garnatje: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6295-6217 25 Jaume Pellicer: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7632-9775 26 Joan Vallès: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1309-3942 27 Nathan Hall: NA 28 Curtis Hansen: NA 29 Leslie Goertzen: NA 30 31 word count: 4,458 32 33 Abstract 34 The genus Marshallia is made up by seven to ten species of perennial herbs growing mainly in 35 open habitats, whereas the genus Balduina is represented by three sympatric species; two 36 perennial herbs and one annual, growing in open pine forest habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Helenium Amarum RUFINO OSORIO1
    Originally published in The Palmetto 2011, 28(4): 12–13. Spanish Daisy: Helenium amarum 1 RUFINO OSORIO Helenium amarum (Rafinesque) H. Rock (Asteraceae) is an ornamental and underutilized annual wildflower native to Florida. Its horticultural attributes and cultivation are discussed. KEYWORDS: Asteraceae, Helenium, Florida, native plant, annual, wildflower. was 27 years later in the garden center of a Lowes home improvement store, where it was being sold as a bedding annual. It was an uncommonly attractive plant with conspicuous pure yellow daisies and, once I got over the surprise of seeing a fairly obscure native Florida wildflower for sale in a big box store, I scooped up three pots and went home as pleased as any pirate with a treasure chest full of gold. Spanish daisy grows from 3–30 inches tall depending on soil fertility, soil moisture, and genetic background, but plants are typically 8–18 inches tall. Although it is a weedy plant as is evidenced by its proclivity to colonize disturbed ground along roadsides and overgrazed pastures, it is not at all coarse or rank, and it has a tidy and refined appearance. Plants branch repeatedly and naturally tend to form rounded masses of foliage. The leaves Long gone are the days when a Florida native garden are narrowly linear, almost threadlike, and they at was essentially a miniature arboretum of trees and once serve to distinguish Spanish daisy from the shrubs with an occasional vine or two. The native other six species of Helenium occurring in Florida. garden palette has expanded considerably in the last The tip of every stem ends in a bright yellow daisy twenty years and wildflowers and grasses are now with about 8 ray florets (the so-called "petals" of a commonplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Threats to Australia's Grazing Industries by Garden
    final report Project Code: NBP.357 Prepared by: Jenny Barker, Rod Randall,Tony Grice Co-operative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management Date published: May 2006 ISBN: 1 74036 781 2 PUBLISHED BY Meat and Livestock Australia Limited Locked Bag 991 NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Meat & Livestock Australia acknowledges the matching funds provided by the Australian Government to support the research and development detailed in this publication. This publication is published by Meat & Livestock Australia Limited ABN 39 081 678 364 (MLA). Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. However MLA cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained in the publication. You should make your own enquiries before making decisions concerning your interests. Reproduction in whole or in part of this publication is prohibited without prior written consent of MLA. Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Abstract This report identifies 281 introduced garden plants and 800 lower priority species that present a significant risk to Australia’s grazing industries should they naturalise. Of the 281 species: • Nearly all have been recorded overseas as agricultural or environmental weeds (or both); • More than one tenth (11%) have been recorded as noxious weeds overseas; • At least one third (33%) are toxic and may harm or even kill livestock; • Almost all have been commercially available in Australia in the last 20 years; • Over two thirds (70%) were still available from Australian nurseries in 2004; • Over two thirds (72%) are not currently recognised as weeds under either State or Commonwealth legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011
    Appendix F - Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest April 2011 Appendix F - Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 Species Diversity..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Ecosystem Context for Species ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 Identification and Screening of Species ............................................................................... 6 3.0 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................... 7 3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species List ............................................................................ 7 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions and Plan Components .......................... 8 3.2.1 Indiana Bat ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Virginia Big-Eared Bat ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Categories for Natural and Agricultural Ecosystem Management
    Weed Categories for Natural and Agricultural Ecosystem Management R.H. Groves (Convenor), J.R. Hosking, G.N. Batianoff, D.A. Cooke, I.D. Cowie, R.W. Johnson, G.J. Keighery, B.J. Lepschi, A.A. Mitchell, M. Moerkerk, R.P. Randall, A.C. Rozefelds, N.G. Walsh and B.M. Waterhouse DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY Weed categories for natural and agricultural ecosystem management R.H. Groves1 (Convenor), J.R. Hosking2, G.N. Batianoff3, D.A. Cooke4, I.D. Cowie5, R.W. Johnson3, G.J. Keighery6, B.J. Lepschi7, A.A. Mitchell8, M. Moerkerk9, R.P. Randall10, A.C. Rozefelds11, N.G. Walsh12 and B.M. Waterhouse13 1 CSIRO Plant Industry & CRC for Australian Weed Management, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, ACT 2601 2 NSW Agriculture & CRC for Australian Weed Management, RMB 944, Tamworth, NSW 2340 3 Queensland Herbarium, Mt Coot-tha Road, Toowong, Qld 4066 4 Animal & Plant Control Commission, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, GPO Box 2834, Adelaide, SA 5001 5 NT Herbarium, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, GPO Box 990, Darwin, NT 0801 6 Department of Conservation & Land Management, PO Box 51, Wanneroo, WA 6065 7 Australian National Herbarium, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, ACT 2601 8 Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, AQIS & CRC for Australian Weed Management, c/- NT Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, GPO Box 3000, Darwin, NT 0801 9 Victorian Institute for Dryland Agriculture, NRE & CRC for Australian Weed Management, Private Bag 260, Horsham, Vic. 3401 10 Department of Agriculture Western Australia & CRC for Australian Weed Management, Locked Bag No. 4, Bentley, WA 6983 11 Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, GPO Box 1164, Hobart, Tas.
    [Show full text]